The people who falsely claim authoritative knowledge are being called out, loudly in public.  About goddamn time.


“We evolutionary biologists (@SwipeWright
, @Evolutionistrue
, @FondOfBeetles
and others) are fascinated by the immense diversity in body and behavior of male and female organisms. We also understand that mammals come in two sexes, male and female, and that these are reproductive categories that are defined by the body plan for the production of either large or small gametes.

knows what we think about all this, so I am confused about why he says in @sciam
that scientists like us “maintain that whether our bodies make ova or sperm are all we need to know about sex.” Relatedly, he says that “producing ova or sperm does not tell us everything…about an individual’s childcare capacity, homemaking tendencies, sexual attractions, interest in literature…” Um…who is saying that gametes dictate any of this? That sex is binary is obviously compatible with traits like interest in literature varying widely between the two sexes. It is also compatible with the existence of significant differences between the sexes.

Unfortunately, Fuentes has tarred all the members of a diverse group with the same brush, denigrating the motives of those who assert that sex is real, biological, binary and meaningful for social policy. “They are arguing for a specific political, and discriminatory, definition of what is ‘natural’ and ‘right’ for humans based on a false representation of biology…[and] dishonest ascriptions of what biology is are being deployed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy…and to attack the rights of transexual and transgender people.”

Sex matters because even though bodies and behavior vary, being male or female does predict a lot. Women in particular understand this, because we are more physically vulnerable than men. We care about gender-diverse people and their basic human rights, and we are *also* concerned about safety and fairness in places like prison cells and women’s sports. These issues can be debated sensibly without relying on “a false representation of biology.”